Shafiquil Muhshna is the Government Affairs Coordinator at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization. She holds dual master’s degrees in social work and public administration from Florida State University and has extensive experience in nonprofit management, policy analysis and government relations. Prior to joining CAIR served as Senior Policy Analyst for the Salvation Army.
Over the past nine months, some of Israel's strongest supporters in the U.S. Congress have advanced a series of bills that, if enacted, would have rolled back core American commitments to human rights and civil liberties at home and abroad. While framed as measures to strengthen U.S. policy, the real effect of these proposals would silence Americans critical of Israel's actions in Gaza, shielding Tel Aviv from accountability for violations of international law. Luckily, an increasing number of elected officials have rejected the status quo of blindly supporting Israel—a dynamic that will ultimately advance real U.S. interests and values abroad and, subsequently, at home.
Section 226 of H.R. 5300, titled the "Department of State Policy Provision Act," was the latest example. Introduced by Representative Brian Mast, a Florida lawmaker who once wore an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) uniform in the Congress and equated Palestinian civilians to Nazis, the bill would have given the Secretary of State sweeping power to revoke U.S. passports based on unproven allegations of providing "material support" for terrorism.
Everyone knew that the bill was meant to give Secretary Marco Rubio another tool to crack down on both Americans and immigrants daring to speak up for Palestinian human rights. That absurdity produced an outcry from both the political left and right, leading Mast to back down. But that series of events would not be the first time that the American people beat back attempts to sacrifice our freedoms for the benefit of the Israeli government.
"An increasing number of elected officials have rejected the status quo of blindly supporting Israel—a dynamic that will ultimately advance real U.S. interests and values abroad and, subsequently, at home.
- Shafiquil Muhshna
The International Criminal Court (ICC) sanctions bill, H.R. 23, tried to punish the ICC for investigating U.S. allies, shielding war crimes from accountability. Thus far, it has stalled in the Senate. Similarly, the Non-Profit Killer Bills—H.R.9495 and H.R.6408—quietly lurked inside a massive budget reconciliation package earlier this year, designed to strangle non-profit organizations advocating for human rights. But when advocates raised alarm about the threat to non-profits on all sides of our nation's political debates, the bill disappeared from the package.
The Antisemitism Awareness Act's House and Senate versions—H.R.1007 and S.558—sought to define any criticism on college campuses of Israel, its founding or Zionism as discriminatory and illegal anti-Semitism. The bill fell apart when all Democrats and a few Republicans on the Senate Committee on Health Education Labor and Pensions approved amendments introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders, making clear that criticizing the Israeli government's war on the people of Gaza is not inherently antisemitic. In response, Republican committee members refused to advance their bill.
More recently, the International Governmental Organizations (IGO) Boycott Bill, H.R.867—the latest iteration of the Israel Anti-Boycott Act—attempted to criminalize actions by Americans supporting boycotts of Israel with the backing of international institutions. Once again, public pressure and organized opposition have so far stopped the bill from advancing.
And now, Rubio's attempted passport power grab in Section 226 of H.R. 5300 has joined the growing list of defeated measures. Mast proposed an amendment to strike section 226 for fear of undermining efforts to restore the secretary's command and management of the State Department. Combined with public opposition, these concerns helped prevent the measure from advancing.
Each proposal challenges the very framework of U.S. human rights commitments at home and abroad, from freedom of speech and association to due process, showing how foreign policy influence can be leveraged to undermine domestic liberties. In this regard, these measures constitute a coordinated attempt to exploit existing legal power for political ends, turning civil liberties undergirding public criticism of foreign policy into bargaining chips to protect a foreign ally.
However, these victories also tell a story: Despite the enormous influence of the Israeli government and the pro-Israel lobby in the United States over the White House and Congress, its influence is not unlimited. When Americans come together across political lines to defend our rights and stand up to "Israel First" lawmakers who put the Constitution last, we can win.
Lawmakers like Mast seek to curry favor with a foreign government by punishing Americans critical of that government, and they are not finished trying. The logic is consistent: Target dissent, weaken accountability and normalize restrictions on free expression and civic participation whenever Israel's policies are criticized. Such an approach is an afront to U.S. democratic practices and the basic values binding all Americans.
Fortunately, the pattern is clear. Americans across the political spectrum must remain vigilant to ensure that future legislation does not sacrifice core freedoms for the sake of shielding allies from accountability.
Upholding U.S. commitments to human rights abroad requires rejecting bills that weaken them at home in the name of a so-called foreign "partner"—regardless of the country or actor interested in driving the anti-American ideals undergirding them. The Constitution is not for sale, and anyone who tries to put foreign interests above it will face the full force of a citizenry unwilling to be silenced.
